The marshal’s investigation was but one aspect of an increasingly intense
scrutiny of the watch by the City authorities in the last decade of the century, as
crime and vagrancy became more difficult to control. In royal proclamations
and lord mayors’ precepts, the City’s problems were frequently blamed on the
failures of the watch, as the lord mayor said in 1689 , to ‘exercise that care and
circumspection which they are placed and intended for wherefore to prevent
... mischiefs’.^29 A royal proclamation of 1692 ‘For Apprehending Robbers’ com-
plained that ‘many heinous murders Robberies and Burglaries have been com-
mitted and many leud disorderly and wicked persons who betake themselves to
committ such murders Robberies and Burglaries have been and may be em-
boldened to the like offences by reason of the negligence of due keeping of watch
and warding.. .’.^30 The Common Council established a committee to investi-
gate these matters in that year, without result.^31 Three years later, when the City
marshal confirmed what everyone knew, that the watch was badly under-
manned, a further flurry of precepts and proposals to investigate followed—
again without result.^32 In most of these investigations, the blame for the
inadequacy of the watch fell on the beadles and constables for hiring fewer con-
stables than the rules required. Some vestries were also accused of deliberately
keeping watches smaller than they were supposed to be in the interest of saving
money.^33 But the constables bore the brunt of the criticism: indeed, it may well
have been the perceived corruption of constables—collecting more money for the
watch than they spent—that encouraged the Court of Aldermen to impose the
tight controls over the appointment of deputies in the 1690 s. Aldermanic orders
and controls made little impression, however, on what had become settled, even
customary, arrangements.^34 Every investigation revealed that the transition
towards a fully paid watch that was going on in practice and in different ways
and at different speeds depending on the circumstances of each ward, provided
opportunities for private arrangements and forms of corruption that were being
exploited all over the City.
The underlying problem, especially in the large wards, was a shortage of
money. Until it was fully acknowledged that the watch had become a paid body
that required an effective rating and collection system, poor wards could not
raise sufficient funds to support the watchmen they were supposed to deploy.
The contrast between the poor parts of the City and a rich ward like Cornhill
could not have been clearer. In the latter, the wardmote inquest could afford to
respond to policing problems by paying watchmen for longer hours of work
when the need arose. They raised extra money in the difficult winter of 1692 – 3 ,
for example, to pay their watchmen ‘for extraordinary duty’ from November to
the end of February, and declared their intention to continue to do so in the
future if necessary. This may have been ‘morning duty’, for which they were
178 Policing the Night Streets
(^29) Jor 51 , fo. 16. (^30) Jor 51 , fos. 107 – 9. (^31) Jor 51 , fo. 193.
(^32) Jor 52 , fo. 105 ; Rep 100 , fos. 10, 168– 9. (^33) Rep 92 , p. 238. (^34) Rep 98 , pp. 51, 76, 121.